pane_run

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is known; the description adds that input goes through an interactive shell, which implies arbitrary command execution. It omits a key behavioral fact: that the command's output is not returned here and must be collected via pane_wait_output or pane_read, and it doesn't say what happens if the pane is not at a prompt.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the action first and the precondition second; no filler, nothing repeated from annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the precondition is stated. But for a two-param tool at 0% schema coverage, the omission of pane_id format and of the follow-up step to read command output (a sibling tool exists for exactly that) leaves meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It clarifies that 'command' is a shell command executed with Enter, but says nothing about the pane_id form (numeric vs '%1'-style) or whether the command is a single line.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (type a shell command into a pane) plus the distinguishing action of pressing Enter, which differentiates it from the text/keystroke siblings like pane_send_text and pane_send_keys. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"The pane must be at an interactive shell prompt" gives a real precondition for use, which is more than a bare capability statement. However, it never says when to prefer this over pane_send_text / pane_send_keys, nor what to do if the precondition fails.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.